amateriat
We're all light!
Oh. Goodness.
Dante: I love you, man, and this won't be the first time I've disagreed wildly with something you've written, which is cool: I still regard you and your site as a solid source of information. And, I understand that in this case you are generally airing your opinion, which I'm always game to hear.
However...
- I've been scanning my film for something like a decade now, and even the worst scanner I had could wring out detail in the negative or slide that would put many a wet darkroom practicioner to shame (especially if we're talking color). Admittedly, all the scanners I've owned, from my first (used) Nikon LS-10 to my current Minolta DS 5400, were at least "pretty good."
- I have the option of either scanning and printing digitally or printing traditionally via the wet darkroom, or something in between. Options are always good.
- Shooting digital: I do that from time to time, but I really have a bug up my ass about just about all dSLRs: the "good" ones are oversized and ergonomically overwrought; the small ones are technically undernourished, crop-factored, and, too often, still ergonomically overwrought.
- Of course, I tend to dislike shooting with any SLR now, digital or film. Which leaves...
- The digital rangefinders. Don't like any of the existing ones. I grok my Hexars lots, of course.
So, no, scanning film isn't a waste of time (not any more than developing a "fast" RAW workflow for dealing with stuff I shoot with the Olympus C-8080...that's at least as time-consuming for me, if not moreso). In the end, it's up to the individual. There are those here who would rather watch paint dry than scan another strip of film again, and I respect that POV. This isn't a problem for me, however.
- Barrett
Dante: I love you, man, and this won't be the first time I've disagreed wildly with something you've written, which is cool: I still regard you and your site as a solid source of information. And, I understand that in this case you are generally airing your opinion, which I'm always game to hear.
However...
- I've been scanning my film for something like a decade now, and even the worst scanner I had could wring out detail in the negative or slide that would put many a wet darkroom practicioner to shame (especially if we're talking color). Admittedly, all the scanners I've owned, from my first (used) Nikon LS-10 to my current Minolta DS 5400, were at least "pretty good."
- I have the option of either scanning and printing digitally or printing traditionally via the wet darkroom, or something in between. Options are always good.
- Shooting digital: I do that from time to time, but I really have a bug up my ass about just about all dSLRs: the "good" ones are oversized and ergonomically overwrought; the small ones are technically undernourished, crop-factored, and, too often, still ergonomically overwrought.
- Of course, I tend to dislike shooting with any SLR now, digital or film. Which leaves...
- The digital rangefinders. Don't like any of the existing ones. I grok my Hexars lots, of course.
So, no, scanning film isn't a waste of time (not any more than developing a "fast" RAW workflow for dealing with stuff I shoot with the Olympus C-8080...that's at least as time-consuming for me, if not moreso). In the end, it's up to the individual. There are those here who would rather watch paint dry than scan another strip of film again, and I respect that POV. This isn't a problem for me, however.
- Barrett
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I started a major scanning effort a number of years ago to convert all my old negatives to digital files, but it eventually occurred to me that it was a waste of time. Nobody after I'm gone is going to care crap about terabytes of digital files stored on whatever the flavor of the day media is at that time. Certainly aren't going to ever look at them. So I gave up the scanning stuff except for a frame or two from each roll I shoot that currently amuses me.
Unless we're famous, I don't think the "quality" of the scans will matter one iota because the scans will just be tossed, anyway.
But even the V500 does pretty darn good with scans, likely as good as most of us will ever need.
Unless we're famous, I don't think the "quality" of the scans will matter one iota because the scans will just be tossed, anyway.
But even the V500 does pretty darn good with scans, likely as good as most of us will ever need.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
charjohncarter
Veteran
Mabelsound, Yes, both negatives and slides.
colker
Well-known
no chemicals involved, no waste of water not to mention a scanner takes less space than a darkroom.
although time spent in a darkroom is SWEEET.
JohnTF
Veteran
Glad to hear the modification works, I have not used mine yet, but my processor is very happy, certainly drives down the cost of scans made at time of processing.
Any real feelings about whether to stick with Nikon's software or go with VueScan?
Would like to ease my transition to digital by keeping the option of shooting film, doing hopefully minor Photoshop corrections, and letting someone else do the RA4 prints.
I just put up some scans from XP2 shot in Mexico, but I think they mistakenly turned off the Digital ICE.
That said, I can shoot digital, or I can shoot some of the vintage equipment and have direct RA4 results, or scans. I shot a roll of XP2 to test the Leica next to my name, and it shoots just fine. Scanning film is a cake and eat it solution? The Coolscan 4000 sometimes is about at give away prices.
Regards, John
Any real feelings about whether to stick with Nikon's software or go with VueScan?
Would like to ease my transition to digital by keeping the option of shooting film, doing hopefully minor Photoshop corrections, and letting someone else do the RA4 prints.
I just put up some scans from XP2 shot in Mexico, but I think they mistakenly turned off the Digital ICE.
That said, I can shoot digital, or I can shoot some of the vintage equipment and have direct RA4 results, or scans. I shot a roll of XP2 to test the Leica next to my name, and it shoots just fine. Scanning film is a cake and eat it solution? The Coolscan 4000 sometimes is about at give away prices.
Regards, John
dfoo
Well-known
I use nikon scan for color, vuescan for black and white. I find nikonscan for black and white keeps blowing the whites.
JohnTF
Veteran
Does it make any difference if it is chromogenic or silver? John
dfoo
Well-known
For black and white I only use silver, so I don't know.
JohnTF
Veteran
Thanks, I have looked at both, but am in Tech Limbo as I sort out my computer problems. John
snausages
Well-known
I've just begun to do my own scanning, but it seems extremely exciting to be able to have a 100MB file of a MF slide. It can easily take an hour to scan and process one frame, but it seems worth it to have this kind of control over and archiving of your own media. I've been really happy with the initial results, at least in color, where dust issues aren't as painful...
